ReviewFrontiers in rehabilitation sciences2026
Evidence and alternatives to the routine use of cuffed tracheostomy tubes in spontaneously breathing patients with neurological disorders.
Review in Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Rethinking tracheostomy care: cuffless tubes for patients with aspiration.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Cuffed Tracheostomy tubes (TT) are often used in spontaneously breathing patients with neurological impairment because of a high risk of aspiration. Besides to the well-known risks, cuffed TT impair cough efficiency and therapeutic strategies for the treatment of dysphagia. Methods: A PRISMA-based systematic review of MEDLINE, PubMed and Cochrane examined the available evidence on cuffed tracheostomy tubes in spontaneously breathing, neurologically impaired adult patients and summarized key findings and alternatives to their routine use. Results: The studies-mostly clinical reports and narrative reviews-describe in-house treatment strategies to minimize tracheal damage caused by cuffed TT. No RCTs were found that prove the benefit of cuffed TT in patients with a high risk of aspiration. Conclusion: The current data does not support the routine use of cuffed TT in non-ventilated patients with neurological impairment and a high risk of aspiration. Prospective studies are required to compare the benefit of cuffed vs. cuffless TT in this population to prevent aspiration pneumonia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.